010 Leadership Matters – part 4

Titus 1:5-9 (6)

February 23, 2025

Tonight we just jump back into our look at leadership.

#1 THE PURPOSE

Titus 1:5a

#2 THE DIRECTIVE

Titus 1:5b-9

1. The Title

2. The Job

3. The Plurality

4. The Appointment

5. The Gender

To just wrap up our discussion this morning a little more,

I would like to add that

The restriction against women serving as elders

Also serves to intensify the obligation that men step up.

The age-old excuse given for women pastors has been:

“But what do you do if the men won’t do it?”

That is an embarrassing reality that every man will one day answer for.

· If a church can’t find qualified men – that is embarrassing.

· If a church can’t find men willing to do the job – that is embarrassing.

· If a church can’t find men willing to be trained – that is also embarrassing.

The question rings in my ear:

Ezekiel 22:30 “I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.”

As I’m going to show you in our walk through this.

· If you have disqualified yourself then work to re-qualify yourself.

· If you are untrained, then get trained.

· If you are unwilling, then repent.

When the Lord returns, and looks at the men of the church,

I have a difficult time thinking

The common excuses for not caring for His flock will be accepted.

· Sorry Lord, I didn’t care for your flock because I chose to stay in an unqualified lifestyle.

· Sorry Lord, I didn’t care for your flock because I didn’t want to endure training.

· Sorry Lord, I didn’t care for your flock because the job looked too difficult.

I have a difficult time thinking those will work.

If the Lord restricts the women,

Then certainly He obligates the men.

So let’s get to the 6th aspect of our discussion regarding elders.

6) THE REPUTATION

And this segment covers verses 6-8,

And would be considered by most to be the real heart of the issue.

We know we are speaking about the reputation

Because we see the same phrase mentioned twice.

· Verse 6 we read, “if any man is above reproach”

· Verse 7 we read, “For the overseer must be above reproach”

The main point is the issue of being “above reproach”

And we see that here in Titus there are two main categories

In which the potential elder’s reputation is to be evaluated.

1. In verse 6 we are evaluating his reputation dealing with his FAMILY.

2. In verse 7 we are evaluating his reputation dealing with the CHURCH.

It is only fair to state that 1 Timothy contains a third area of evaluation:

1 Timothy 3:7 “And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

3. That third level would be his reputation with OUTSIDERS.

And we’ll look at all three in an effort to be exhaustive.

But let me say this, as we begin this segment.

THIS CAN BE AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT SEGMENT TO DEAL WITH.

One of the reasons this is difficult is because of

· THE LACK OF CONSENSUS among theologians regarding the

interpretation of these qualifications.

There are many commentaries seeking to explain the qualifications for elders the interpretations are all over the place.

LET ME ILLUSTRATE.

And I’m not even going to bother looking at what

We would consider to be a liberal approach that disregards Scripture.

That is to say, we’re not even going to waste our time listening to people who ordain women pastors or homosexuals or who really don’t care who becomes an elder.

I’m just talking about a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

From men we would trust as having sound doctrine.

JUST LOOK AT THE FAMILY REQUIREMENTS.

Let’s take the requirement that the elder must be “the husband of one wife”

Interpretations have been all over the place.

· Some said a single man was disqualified

· Some said a widower was disqualified

· Some said it only referred to polygamy

· But very few yield to those interpretations today.

Every sound Bible teacher I know

Interprets that passage from the Greek to mean “a one-woman man”

And considers it a call to sexual purity.

Ok, that seems clear enough. But is it?

· What about a divorced man?

· What about a man who was divorced and now remarried?

· What about a man who was divorced before he was saved?

· What about a man who was just wild as a single man before he was saved?

Well we could turn to John MacArthur, who you know that I love.

John MacArthur will tell you that

· A man who has committed sexual immorality is disqualified.

· Even if the offense occurred before salvation.

· And that may very well be the explanation of the divorce.

He references sexual immorality as a sin

Which a man can never come back from in the sense of leadership.

Here’s a quote:

“The writer of Proverbs asks rhetorically, “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can a man walk on hot coals, and his feet not be scorched? So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; whoever touches here will not go unpunished” (Prov 6:27-29). “Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry,” the writer goes on to say, “but when he is found, he must repay sevenfold; he must give all the substance of his house” (vv. 30-31). But “the one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; he who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Prov. 6:32-33). Unlike a thief, a man who commits adultery has no way to make restitution for his sin and can never be free of reproach and, consequently, can never be “above reproach.”

(MacArthur, John [The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Titus; Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1996] pg. 28)

· He goes on to mention men like Reuben who defiled his father’s bed and lost preeminence.

· He mentions men like David who was faithful except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

· He mentions men like Solomon who was faithful except with the foreign women who caused him to sin.

And regarding David and Solomon, who were Kings in Israel, MacArthur says,

“Both of these godly men were specially loved and blessed by God, yet both were morally disqualified as spiritual shepherds of God’s people. Despite their great devotion to the Lord and faithfulness in His service, sexual infidelity gave them a permanent moral stigma.”

(ibid, pg. 29)

So you can see that MacArthur is rigid on the issue.

· Men who commit adultery

· Men who have committed adultery through divorce and remarriage

They are PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED

Because they carry a stigma which cannot be undone.

I was curious that he said nothing however about men who have struggled with pornography

· Since Jesus clearly identifies it as adultery,

· But it carries no public stigma unless it has been found out.

BUT NONE THE LESS, there is one MacArthur’s interpretation of

“the husband of one wife.”

But let’s listen to Alexander Strauch who wrote the book

“Biblical Eldership”

· A book I bought at the bookstore of John MacArthur’s church

· On the back cover there is a recommendation from John MacArthur that says, “Mr. Strauch has made a fine contribution to the subject of eldership. I am confident that it will be helpful to many.”

Well what does Alexander Strauch have to say about “the husband of one wife”?

Here is what Strauch had to say:

“What does 1 Timothy say about sexual marital sins committed before a person’s conversion to Christ? What about people who have legally divorced and remarried (assuming the local church allows for such)? What about the forgiveness and restoration of a fallen spiritual leader? These and many other painful and controversial questions are not answered directly here. They must be answered from the whole of Scripture’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, forgiveness, grace, and restoration, as well as its teaching on leadership example and the full spectrum of elder qualifications.”

(Strauch, Alexander [Biblical Eldership, Lewis and Roth Publishers, Littleton, CO, 1995] pg. 192-193)

So Strauch just says Timothy and Titus

· Aren’t clear enough and don’t answer such dilemmas,

· But that someone had better consider Scripture’s teaching on forgiveness, grace, and restoration while you decide what it means.

A little bit of fence riding there but certainly not as rigid as MacArthur.

This is from Gene Getz and his book “Elders and Leaders”,

Another book I bought at MacArthur’s bookstore.

Gene Getz is the pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Plano, TX

And a seminary professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

He writes regarding those who see no way back from adultery:

“Unfortunately, this interpretation puts divorce in the category of an unpardonable sin, whereas a man could be guilty of murder and still become a spiritual leader – which characterized Paul’s life (Acts 9:1, 26). In his first letter to Timothy, before listing the qualifications of an elder/overseer, Paul classified himself as “the worst of sinners” – “a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man” (1 Timothy 1:13-16). And yet, his position as an apostle was far more prominent as a multiple church planter than being a spiritual leader in a local church. Murder did not disqualify him from being the greatest missionary who ever lived.”

(Getz, Gene [Elders and Leaders, Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL, 2003] pg. 165)

He goes on to write:

“In terms of forgiveness of sins, there is no argument. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7). But why not the sin of divorce? Bible scholar Robert L. Saucy develops the answer to this question in a very objective and thorough fashion in an excellent journal article entitled “The Husband of One Wife.” He concludes by saying: “If this interpretation is correct…(1) that adultery is probably not a continual state of sin, but can be forgiven even as a murder, (2) that divorce does not dissolve marriage so that one married again is not considered to be the husband of two wives, then it would seem reasonable to interpret the qualification of being the husband of one wife as a present quality of a man’s life.”

(ibid. pg. 166)

Getz concludes by saying:

“We believe that Paul was simply requiring that a man be above reproach morally, that he be a “one-woman man” – which is a legitimate translation. In essence, he was to be loyal to one woman and one woman only – his present wife.”

(ibid. pg. 167)

So Getz, through the eyes of redemption, interprets it that we look at the man’s present situation and evaluate him there.

So there are 3 trusted pastor/theologians all weighing in on the issue of a one-woman man.

· One says one woman per lifetime regardless of conversion.

· One says it’s tricky, but read the whole bible to interpret the issue.

· One says redemption triumphs and if murder can be forgiven so can adultery.

Now I’m not quoting those guys to say which one we are going to believe,

I just want you to understand that

These are highly commented on and highly debated issues.

And even the most orthodox disagree.

Consider the issue of “having children who believe”.

All 3 men agree that Paul has grown children in view here,

Not just children in the household.

Here is MacArthur’s take:

“Many Christian men who work hard to support and manage their households utterly fail in leading their children to salvation, to godliness, and to Christian service. It is not that a faithful and conscientious father is responsible for his children’s rejection of the gospel. He may have made every effort to teach them their need of salvation through trust in Jesus Christ and have set a godly example for them to follow. Nevertheless, such men are not qualified to be elders if they do not have children not only who believe but who are also not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”

(MacArthur, pg. 30-31)

So MacArthur’s take is that

A man may have done everything right as a father,

But if his grown children don’t exercise saving faith in Christ

He is disqualified.

What about Alexander Strauch?

“The contrast made is not between believing and unbelieving children, but between obedient, respectful children and lawless, uncontrolled children. The strong terms “dissipation and rebellion” stress the children’s behavior, not their eternal state…Those who interpret this qualification to mean that an elder must have believing, Christian children place an impossible burden upon a father. Even the best Christian fathers cannot guarantee that their children will believe. Salvation is a supernatural act of God. God, not good parents (although they are certainly used of God), ultimately brings salvation (John 1:12,13)”

(Strauch, pg. 229)

So he says

· You can’t require salvation of a man’s grown children because a father has no control over it.

· He interprets Paul to mean, are the children faithful, trustworthy, and dutiful?

· He says you examine the behavior of the man’s grown children and consider whether or not they are moral.

Obviously a step back from MacArthur’s point.

· And I should probably note that MacArthur goes on a long dialogue to prove that it is salvation and not just faithfulness.

What about our third man?

What about Gene Getz?

What does he have to say about the qualification “having children who believe”?

“Unfortunately, the world’s system can at times undo everything a parent has done. But unless this hurts the man’s reputation, these isolated instances should not disqualify him from being appointed as an elder/overseer…Paul was primarily concerned that every man selected and appointed to serve as an elder / overseer must have a good reputation, both in church and in the larger community.”

(Getz, pg. 170-171)

So his take is it really is an issue of embarrassment.

· If the grown kids are a present and hurt the man’s reputation he is disqualified.

· If they are not present or do not harm his reputation then he is not.

And again, I don’t show you that to tell you which one to believe,

Just to show you that these are difficult issues

That are not that black and white.

Some interpret by definition of word…some by spirit of intent

But regardless of where we settle,

· Someone orthodox is going to disagree.

· There are books written regarding why our assessment will be wrong.

Our only option

· Is to approach such matters with prayer,

· As we consider what men have to say,

· But ultimately we study the Scriptures and seek to obey the Lord to the best of our abilities.

So let me give you some of MY CONSIDERATIONS

As I examine these passages and consider men.

1) THE PURPOSE OF TITUS’ MINISTRY

THE PURPOSE WAS TO FIND ELDERS, NOT ELIMINATE THEM.

Don’t forget that Titus directive was

To “appoint elders” not eliminate them.

We talked previously about

· How Crete was 160 miles long and may have had 100 churches.

· How Titus had a relatively short window.

· And Titus was expected to appoint elders in every city.

The goal was not to go through all the churches

And scrutinize all the men to such a degree

That you disqualify everyone there.

If he does that, he’s not going to appoint any elders.

He is traveling an island

· Known as an island of “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”

· Of Greek influence and pagan culture.

If he is going to do a deep dive

Into the full history of every single man in every single church

I am doubtful that he is finding more than a few on the whole island.

I’m not suggesting

· That he was ever supposed to turn a blind eye to any of these criteria, not at all.

But I am suggesting

· That the goal was to find men, not eliminate them.

2) THE CRITERIA TITUS WORKED FROM

THE WORD DISQUALIFIED IS NEVER USED HERE.

Now I’m NOT suggesting that no one would be disqualified by this list.

But the idea of some permanent disqualification

Based on decisions made years ago is not in this list.

Nothing Paul says here speaks of a man’s former life.

Everything Paul speaks of speaks of the man’s present life.

Now sure, if he just committed adultery last week,

We’re going to need A LOT OF TIME

Before we ever consider him faithful again.

But if you are going to eliminate every man based on his past,

Good luck finding a man worthy to serve.

This was a question I asked the missionaries at this XL conference Zech and I attended.

These are men, certainly in fellowship with men like MacArthur.

They spoke of going to Papua New Guinea

· Learning the language

· Translating the Bible

· Establishing the church

· Training elders

I asked them, “How did you ever find any men qualified to serve?”

· Every single person in that tribe had been pagan.

· Every single one had raised pagan children.

· Adultery was in every life.

· Rebellion was in every heart.

· The only difference was now redemption occurred,

If you are going to eliminate men based on their past,

Then these churches they planted aren’t going to have 1 elder,

Let alone plural elders for at least 20 years.

What those missionaries said is that

· Through a two-year training process

· They had to ordain men where currently faithful as evidenced by their

redemption,

· Their past in many ways had to be forgiven and forgotten.

WHAT TITUS IS GOING TO DO IS

Go to a city, enter the church, set them in order

And then begin the process of appointing elders,

And I believe it would look something like this.

“Church, we need to appoint a leadership of elders in this church. I want you to consider the men in your church. Consider their families and consider their behavior in the church, and these are the types of men we are looking for.”

· It could not have been a process void of the reality of redemption.

· It must have been a process that put much more emphasis on their behavior today than it did their behavior 20 years ago or pre-salvation.

THAT IS HOW I AM COMPELLED TO READ THIS LIST.

And that is why I would say,

If we study this list and you are currently a man who is disqualified,

THEN WORK TO BECOME QUALIFIED.

THE CHURCH NEEDS LEADERS.

And the chief issue is this.

“above reproach”

So let’s EXAMINE THAT PHRASE FIRST,

Especially since it is used twice and seems to be the main point.

“above reproach” translates ANEG-KLAY-TOS

It means “to be without fault, unchargeable,

Without indictment, without accusation.”

How many have you heard the statement:

“Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”?

That is a good understanding of what we are talking about here.

When a grand jury is convened

· They hear charges against a man,

· They determine whether or not that man should be indicted.

· An indictment is not a conviction, it only means there is enough evidence available to move forward with the trial.

If you see any smoke, you must recognize there could be a fire.

Well that is the word Paul uses for Titus.

· You go to the church

· You tell the church to examine his family life

· You tell them to examine his service in the church

· Then you ask them, “Is there any smoke?”

Is there anything about the man’s family or behavior that gives you pause that he might not be on the up and up?

· Are there any rumors?

· Are there any disturbing behaviors?

· Are there any things that bother you about the way he treats his wife?

· Are there any things that bother you about the behavior of his kids?

· Are there any things that seem wrong about how he treats people?

That is what Paul is asking.

He is just wanting the congregation to be honest about the man,

And if they can say, “I really don’t see a problem with his family or his behavior in the church” then great.

We CANNOT here be speaking about ABSOLUTE SINLESSNESS.

Obviously no man fits that bill.

But we are talking about a man who is overcoming sin in his life.

We do see that word used other places in the New Testament.

For example:

1 Corinthians 1:8 “who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

· There the word is translates as “blameless”

Colossians 1:21-22 “And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach”

· There it is again “beyond reproach”

Clearly there it does not mean sinless

Since it is used in the context of a man who was formerly sinful

But now has been justified by God.

It would speak of a sanctified man.

I personally like the “blameless” translation.

It makes one think of Job.

Job 1:1 “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.”

We would NOT SAY that Job was sinless by any stretch.

However we also know that when Job’s friends were certain that his suffering was the result of his sin they still couldn’t figure out what it was.

Job was a sinner, but it is also true that

His sin wasn’t blatantly obvious to anyone.

THAT IS THE IDEA HERE.

NOW we see that same requirement in Paul’s list to Timothy,

But it is different.

1 Timothy 3:2 “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”

You see the same words “above reproach”

But there Paul uses a different Greek word.

There he uses: AN-A-PEELUP-TOS

It means “not able to be made a prisoner, not able to be taken captive,

Not able to be laid hold of.”

That implies a little more liberty I think.

It may be a man who is in fact accused or reproached by some,

But after investigation is found innocent.

Someone might accuse him but there’s not enough to convict him.

And I think that rings true with what Paul says later in that letter.

1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”

· There are some who are accused, but even if they are, it cannot stick.

· They cannot be indicted

· They cannot be condemned

· They are blameless, above reproach

I hope that starts clarifying the picture.

· We are NOT talking here about a man without sin.

· We are NOT talking about a man who has never made a mistake.

We are talking about a man however

Who can rise above any scrutiny regarding

The way he raises his family or conducts himself in the church

Or in the world.

He is what we would call a godly man.

He is a man who is overcoming sin in his life.

SO YOU LOOK AROUND THE ROOM,

Based on what you know about the men of the church,

Do you see a man here who you would say was a Godly man?

That’s the idea.

Now, Titus does focus in on a couple of areas.

LET’S TALK ABOUT HIS FAMILY LIFE

He gives two criteria which we read some commentary on earlier.

“if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”

When you are looking at the men of the church

And you are considering whether or not they are godly men

You are going to look at their family.

You are going to examine two key things.

· How do they love their wife?

· How did they raise their kids?

And that is just common sense isn’t it?

If you are about to take a man and give him authority in the church

You would want to examine the institution

Where he has already been in authority

And see how he did there.

So first we look at his relationship with his wife.

Paul says he must be “the husband of one wife”

Again, there were arguments made at various times in the past,

But virtually no one today thinks Paul is talking about

Polygamy or singleness or even a widower.

It is pretty much agreed that the phrase here literally means

“a one-woman man” or not an adulterer.

It has brought up all sorts of questions and criteria.

· What if the man has been divorced?

· Well was it a biblically granted divorce?

· When did the divorce occur?

· Has he ever had an affair?

· What about pornography?

· And when we add, when did it occur?

Those things matter.

If you have a man in your congregation who has been faithfully married for 30 years does God disqualify him because of a divorce he had as an unredeemed young man?

· Now I get it if this is a track record problem.

· I get it if it was recent and there hasn’t been enough time to tell.

But I think you get the spirit of the issue here.

Or, let’s say he did have an affair as a young man.

Is he, as MacArthur noted, disqualified for life?

· What if he had killed his wife instead of cheating on her, would he now be qualified?

· What if it wasn’t a public affair, what if he was looking at pornography?

· What if that was when he was younger, but he has been free from it for years?

I genuinely believe that if you are going to take adultery

To it’s fullest extent and apply it a man’s entire existence

Then you will not find a qualified man anywhere on earth.

I just don’t believe you can tell me about a man

Who has never committed at the very least heart adultery

Through lust even before he was redeemed.

Such a man does not exist.

And I do not think that is what Paul means by the qualification.

No, he is asking the church to examine that man’s

Current married life and to ask about that relationship.

More so than a divorce that happened 30 years ago,

Or even sexual immorality committed 30 years ago,

I am far more concerned with

How he has treated his wife for the last 20 years.

I want to read this:

Ephesians 5:25-32 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”

That is the point.

· Does he sacrifice for his wife?

· Does he love his wife?

· Does he lead his wife properly?

The way he treats his wife

Is a great indicator of the way he’s going to great Christ’s bride.

Look at the men in the church who might be considered as prospective elders,

Would you be happy if they treated the church the way they treat their wife?

Do you have any complaints in that area?

· Are there any red flags?

· Is there any smoke?

THAT IS THE POINT.

Obviously a man who is cheating on his wife is disqualified.

· He can’t even stay in the church in that condition let alone lead it.

Obviously pornography is a disqualifier,

· That must be defeated and crushed in his life with a lengthy track record of victory before a man can be considered.

Obviously a man who dominates his wife or abuses her or mistreats her is disqualified,

· You don’t need that in the church leadership.

You get the point.

Look at how he treats his wife.

The emphasis, as with all of Scripture, is who is this man today?

When we talk about evaluating your salvation,

· We aren’t so much interested in your baptismal date,

· We want to know if spiritual life is evident in you today.

That is what we want to know about potential elders.

Today, how does he treat his wife.

And it is fair to say that this needs to have been the pattern for some time.

Well what if he’s not married?

Obviously we can’t look then at his marriage.

But we can still examine is purity.

Perhaps this passage will help in that evaluation:

1 Timothy 5:1-2 “Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.”

I would ask, does he “treat the older women as mothers and the younger women as sisters, in all purity”?

Because that’s how he’s going to lead as an elder.

· Do any women feel uncomfortable around him?

· Is he inappropriate?

· Is he forward or aggressive?

YOU GET THE POINT.

We are going to take a man

And give him charge over the bride of Christ.

We need to ask how he manages his own bride.

And if you don’t have an accusations

Or charges against him in that arena, that is a good thing.

We were going to examine children too, but we’ll get that next time.